Page 404 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2019. Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju - The Role of National Opera Houses in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 3
P. 404
vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju
great opera works, which allowed no room for newer works. Until the fi-
nal, fourth period, which was deemed very successful by Slovenian critics,
the repertoire was becoming ever more varied, and the presence of youn-
ger composers gradually became a regular feature. This growth and chan-
ge could also be linked to the Opera performers and its management. The
former, with which we refer to the Opera orchestra, was met with unfortu-
nate difficulties in its roster. Following the post-war reestablishment of the
orchestra of the Slovenian Philharmonics, the orchestra had difficulties in
1948 with engaging new performers.[1] In 1956, this issue was still unresol-
ved; one of the minutes of a meeting of the SNG management board clearly
states that the aims of the Opera was to have as many members of the en-
semble as before the war.[2] The difficulties did not cease, but the studied
material does not reveal when these were finally resolved. The difficulties
in terms of the orchestra roster were not taken into account if we consider
the repertoire, which was developing rapidly and thus called for varying or-
chestra sizes.
The second factor for the change and development pertains to the Ope-
ra directors. Immediately following the war, Mirko Polič (1945–1948) beca-
me Director of the Opera, followed by Samo Hubad (1948–1951), Valens Vo-
dušek (1951–1955), Smiljan Samec (1955–1956, Danilo Švara (1956–1958), and
Demetrij Žebre (1958–1968). Some of the directors, such as Polič and Hu-
bad, also provided commentaries of the repertoire and explained the gui-
delines to which they adhered. Thus, Polič said in 1948 that the Opera wi-
shed to lay general foundations, and this was also followed by his successor,
Hubad. Each of the directors did, if we consider the repertoire, contribute
to its development, in particular Žebre, who was Opera Director during the
final, fourth phase of the post-war period. Although there was a number of
directors, it is worth mentioning that the repertoire itself and its critiques
are the pieces of the puzzle that provide the clearest picture of the reperto-
ire demarcation into four distinct periods.
In the first two decades following World War II, the repertoire of the
Opera included works by composers from very different periods and natio-
nalities. The Opera performed its function well and strived for development
and progress, and this did not go unnoticed (as the favorable newspaper re-
views demonstrate). The Opera managed to do well in spite of the many fa-
ctors that made its work harder, for instance lack of funding, as Hubad po-
inted out.
402
great opera works, which allowed no room for newer works. Until the fi-
nal, fourth period, which was deemed very successful by Slovenian critics,
the repertoire was becoming ever more varied, and the presence of youn-
ger composers gradually became a regular feature. This growth and chan-
ge could also be linked to the Opera performers and its management. The
former, with which we refer to the Opera orchestra, was met with unfortu-
nate difficulties in its roster. Following the post-war reestablishment of the
orchestra of the Slovenian Philharmonics, the orchestra had difficulties in
1948 with engaging new performers.[1] In 1956, this issue was still unresol-
ved; one of the minutes of a meeting of the SNG management board clearly
states that the aims of the Opera was to have as many members of the en-
semble as before the war.[2] The difficulties did not cease, but the studied
material does not reveal when these were finally resolved. The difficulties
in terms of the orchestra roster were not taken into account if we consider
the repertoire, which was developing rapidly and thus called for varying or-
chestra sizes.
The second factor for the change and development pertains to the Ope-
ra directors. Immediately following the war, Mirko Polič (1945–1948) beca-
me Director of the Opera, followed by Samo Hubad (1948–1951), Valens Vo-
dušek (1951–1955), Smiljan Samec (1955–1956, Danilo Švara (1956–1958), and
Demetrij Žebre (1958–1968). Some of the directors, such as Polič and Hu-
bad, also provided commentaries of the repertoire and explained the gui-
delines to which they adhered. Thus, Polič said in 1948 that the Opera wi-
shed to lay general foundations, and this was also followed by his successor,
Hubad. Each of the directors did, if we consider the repertoire, contribute
to its development, in particular Žebre, who was Opera Director during the
final, fourth phase of the post-war period. Although there was a number of
directors, it is worth mentioning that the repertoire itself and its critiques
are the pieces of the puzzle that provide the clearest picture of the reperto-
ire demarcation into four distinct periods.
In the first two decades following World War II, the repertoire of the
Opera included works by composers from very different periods and natio-
nalities. The Opera performed its function well and strived for development
and progress, and this did not go unnoticed (as the favorable newspaper re-
views demonstrate). The Opera managed to do well in spite of the many fa-
ctors that made its work harder, for instance lack of funding, as Hubad po-
inted out.
402
